^;v,  .? 


635 

5^7 


'-..^y^C#« 


ij^5^?>' 


^,.#-^>| 


BANCROFT    LIBRARY 


A  REPLY      '^      ! 


•  TO    A     DEFENSE    OF     MORMONS     AND     TO    AN     ATTACK 
UPON   THE   MINISTERIAL   ASSOCIATION  OF   UTAH. 


BY 


THEODORE    SCHROEDER, 

MEMBER    OF    THE    BAR    OF^   UTAH    AND    OF   NEW   YORK, 


REPRINTED    FROM 


THE  TRUTH  SEEKER. 


„ibrify 

A  REPLY  TO  A  DEFENSE  OF  MORMONS  AND  TO 

AN  ATTACK   UPON   THE  MINISTERIAL 

ASSOCIATION  OF  UTAH. 


Every  cause  has  its  Judases,  who  keep  their  intellects 

upon  the  bargain  counter,  and  who,  just  in  proportion  as 

their  price  is  low,  seek  to  conceal  their  turpitude  behind 

^  the  vehemence  and  recklessness  of  their  denunciation  of 

persons  whom  they  should  help.      We  always  hate  those 

'  whom  we  have  betrayed. 

These  thoughts  are  suggested  by  an  article  from  Mr. 

V.  S.  Peet  in  the  Truth  Seeker  for  Nov.  25,  1905.     The 

only  motive  for  the  article  seems  to  be  that  the  preach- 

L  ers,  in  the  regular  pursuit  of  their  business,  are  interfer- 

.  ing  with  the  success  of  Mr.   Peet,   who  wishes  to  sell 

Utah   land.     I  have  no  financial  interest  in  the  business 

enterprise  of  either  disputants,  but  have  such  knowledge 

as  enables  me   to  reach  an  opinion  upon  the  relative 

veracity  of  Mr.  Peet  and  the  preachers  whom  he  accuses. 

J  I  will  address  myself  to  that  question  and  that  alone, 

omitting  discussion  of  matters  of  inference. 

Mr.  Peet  first  complains  that  the  ministerial  associa- 
tion of  Salt  Lake  City  said  that   ^'  the  crime  [polygamy] 
is  spreading  to  adjacent  states  and  territories.'^     Also 
^  that   the   Rev.  J.  E.  Wishard   had   said    that    *'he   had 
^:.  recently  catalogued  the  names  of  thirty  Mormons  who 
-^^  had   taken  plural  wives  since   September,  1890.     This 
and  similar  statements  are  denounced  as  deliberate  lies, 


— 4— 

and  theu  in  a  cheap  stage  bravado  he  adds:  "I  will  say, 
if  reasonable  proof  can  be  made  to  show  that  even  one 
plural  marriage  has  been  performed  or  sanctioned  by  the 
Mormon  Church  since  that  time  (September,  1890),  I 
will  pay  $1,000  for  such  information,"  etc.,  etc. 

It  is  expected  that  those  who  are  gullible  because 
uninformed,  will  assume  this  to  be  proof  that  no  new 
polygamous  wives  exist  in  Utah.  I  will  presently  show 
that  this  argument  proves  too  much,  because  by  the 
same  evidence,  I  can  prove  that  there  never  were  a  half 
dozen  polygamists  in  Mormondom. 

Let  me  ask  how,  in  any  gentile  community,  it  is 
known  that  your  neighbors  are  married  ?  In  ninety-nine 
cases  out  of  a  hundred,  you  never  saw  their  marriage 
certificate,  nor  any  one  who  was  present  at  the  semi- 
public  ceremony.  Yet  you  know,  for  all  practical  pur- 
purposes,  that  they  are  husband  and  wife.  You  infer  it 
from  behavior  toward  one  another  when  seen  in  public 
and  from  the  interest  they  manifest  in  the  children  born 
to  the  woman. 

If  a  missionary  preacher  in  Utah,  from  like  circum- 
stances, makes  a  like  inference,  as  to  the  polygamous 
martial  relations  between  persons  professing  to  believe 
in  the  divinity  of  polygamy,  all  Mormons  and  their 
Jack-Mormon  hirelings  call  him  a  liar  and  demand  the 
proof  of  eye-witnesses  to  the  ceremony,  always  performed 
in  secret,  and  all  parties  to  which  are  interested  to  pre- 
vent publicity.  I  insist  that  this  is  hardly  in  accord 
with  the  efforts  of  honest  men  really. seeking  for  truth. 

During  all  the  years  when  Gentiles  were  in  control  ot 
the  courts  and  the  juries,  and  the  entire  federal  treasury 


— 5— 

and  federal  power  was  behind  the  scores  of  United 
States  marshals  and  the  court  machinery,  seeking  to 
convict  polygamists,  the  total  number  of  convictions  for 
polygamy  during  the  two  score  years  was  about  six,  and 
in  these  cases  the  conviction  was  secured  only  because 
one  of  the  parties  to  the  polygamous  marriage  turned 
state's  evidence.  This  does  not  prove  that  there  were 
only  six  polygamous  marriages  in  Utah,  any  more  than 
Mr.  Peet's  bluff-reward  now  proves  that  there  are  are  no 
new  unlawful  marriages.  In  those  old  days  it  was 
boasted  that  there  were  3,500  polygamous  families.  A 
few  of  these  had  forty  wives.  Assuming  an  average  of 
ten  wives,  and  there  must  have  been  over  thirty  thou- 
sand polygamous  marriages  admittedly  performed,  and 
yet  only  a  half  dozen  convictions  for  "polygamy''  were 
ever  secured,  even  with  the  gentile  courts,  juries,  and 
court  machinery.  Is  it  any  wonder,  then,  that  no  one 
cares  to  call  Mr.  Peet's  cheap  and  safe  bluff,  offering  a 
reward  for  conviction  before  judges  elected  by  Mormons 
and  juries  composed  of  Mormons?  To  him,  of  course, 
nothing  less  would  be  "reasonable  proof. "BfllWroft  UUJMWJ 

All  the  years  from  1833  ^^  ^^5^  ^^^  Mormons  were 
accused  of  polygamy  or  something  a  close  kin  to  it. 
During  all  these  years  they  denied  it  in  every  solemn 
manner  known  to  honest  men,  and  after  1852  solemnly 
admitted  that  all  these  years  they  had  knowingly  lied, 
and  they  justified  their  falsehoods  by  holy  writ.  (For  a 
compilation  of  a  few  of  these  falsehoods  and  the  admis- 
sion and  justification,  see  "Facts  Concerning  Polyg- 
amy," by  myself.) 

During  the  trials  for  "unlawful  cohabitation,"  which 


is  a  different  offense  from  '^polygamy,''  women,  whom 
everybody  believed  to  be  virtuous  according  to  Mormon 
standards,  would  get  upon  the  witness  stand  and  swear 
to  tell  the  truth  and  state  that  they  did  not  know  who 
was  the  father  of  their  babes,  and  this  evident  and 
shameless  perjury  was  generally  justified.  It  is  because 
of  this  special  brand  of  Mormon  conscience  that  no  one 
will  care  to  call  Mr.  Pectus  bluff.  His  undemanded 
reward  does  not  prove  that  the  preachers  are  liars  who 
assert  that  persons  have,  since  1890,  acquired  the  habit 
and  repute  of  polygamous  marriage;  it  only  proves  that 
Mr.  Peet  knows  what  Mormon  juries  would  do  and  his 
confidence  in  the  continuing  Mormon  ability  to  secure 
effective  perjury.  If,  then,  Mr.  Peet  desires  to  prove 
that  in  the  quoted  statements  a  falsehood  has  been  pro- 
claimed by  Utah  preachers,  he  must  find  some  more 
convincing  evidence  than  his  flip  bluff  of  offering  a 
reward  which  proves  nothing  to  the  point. 

Even  if  a  conviction  for  a  new  polygamy  between 
Mormons  by  some  accident  could  be  secured  Mr.  Peet, 
and  his  guarantor  Mr.  Loose,  would  refuse  to  pay  the 
money  because  such  a  conviction  could  not  prove  that 
*'it  has  been  performed  or  sanctioned  by  the  Mormon 
Church,''  because  no  general  conference  of  the  church 
ever  indorsed  that  particular  or  any  other  particular 
marriage.  In  Utah  no  one  pretends  to  deny  that 
Apostles  Abraham  H.  Cannon,  Teasdale  and  Cowley 
have  taken  on  new  polygamous  wives,  and  it  would  be 
interesting  to  have  Mr.  Peet  explain  why  some  promi- 
nent officials  preferred  to  leave  their  homes  rather  than 


appear  before  the  Smoot  Committee  and  testify  about 
their  knowledge  of  new  polygamous  marriages. 

The  ^'honest''  Mr.  Peet  says  that  the  Ministerial  As- 
sociation of  Salt  Lake  "  wanted  to  convey  to  the  minds 
of  the  people  of  this  country  that  Senator  Smoot  was  a 
polygamist.'^  In  their  protest  sent  to  Washington, 
published  to  all  the  world  and  signed  by  these  minis- 
ters, they  say  of  Mr.  Smoot,  "We  accuse  him  of  no 
offense  cognizable  by  law.''  That  is  equal  to  saying: 
"We  do  not  accuse  him  of  being  a  polygamist.''  Isn't 
that  a  queer  way  of  conveying  to  others  the  impression 
that  Senator  Smoot  is  a  polygamist  ?  And  yet  the  very 
honest  Mr.  Peet  wants  us  to  believe  that  others  are  liars. 

The  next  charge  of  this  conscientious  Peet  is  that 
Maria  Weed  at  Cincinnati  said  "  that  Senator  Smoot  at 
one  time  had  five  wives,"  etc.  One  Cincinnati  paper 
did  so  report  Mrs.  Weed's  lecture,  but  she  did  not  so 
state.  What  she  in  fact  said  was  that  Joseph  F.  Smith 
had  five  wives.  Immediately  after  having  her  attention 
called  to  the  erroneous  report,  she  wrote  the  editor  de- 
manding a  correction,  and  from  him  received  a  letter 
promising  that  correction  would  be  made.  That  letter 
she  immediately  sent  to  her  employers  in  New  York. 
These  facts  were  told  me  at  that  time. 

If  this  honest  real  estate  agent  has  really  any  personal 
knowledge  of  the  work  done  by  those  whom  he  maligns, 
he  must  know  that  in  practically  all  her  lectures,  Mrs. 
Weed  has  expressly  disclaimed  that  Mr.  Smoot  was  a 
polygamist,  and  she  has  been  repeatedly  so  reported  by 
the  daily  press.  Will  Mr.  Peet  now  show  that  he  is  as 
conscientious  as  Mrs.  Weed,  and  himself  made  such  a 


correction  as  she  demanded  injustice  to  Mr.  Smoot?  I 
fear  not.  This  lecturer  is  paid  for  tellinor  what  she 
believes  is  true.  Mr.  Peet  is  probably  paid  for  remain- 
ing maliciously  ignorant.  Upon  the  question  of  Helen 
Gould  having  dropped  $6,000  into  the  anti-Smoot  cam- 
paign, I  am  sure  he  is  in  error.  She  is  a  member  of  the 
Interdenominational  Council  of  women  which  is  promi- 
nently engaged  in  that  work,  but  she  has  not  increased 
her  annual  subscription  of  a  few  hundred  dollars  on 
account  of  the  Smoot  case. 

Our  discriminating  Methodist  Saint  Peet  seems  to 
have  discovered  that  the  newspapers  are  always  truthful 
in  misreporting  preachers,  and  always  lie  when  saying 
unpleasant  things  about  Mormons.  As  to  his  charges 
against  the  Rev.  Duncan  J.  McMillan,  the  accused  par- 
son writes  this  to  me:  ''While  I  was  speaking  at  Del- 
monico's,  in  November,  1903,  I  was  interrupted  with 
the  question:  'Is  Mr.  Smoot  a  polygamist?'  In  reply,  I 
said:  'I  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  Mr.  Smooths 
domestic  affairs,  I  never  saw  the  man.  Mr.  Lelich 
charges  him  with  the  offense  of  polygamy,  and  many 
others  believe  he  has  more  than  one  wife,  but  in  the 
absence  of  larger  proof,  the  charge  is  not  made  whole  by 
the  contestants/  "  Here  again  our  "honest"  friend  is 
in  error. 

Mr.  Peet,  who  is  so  sensitive  about  honesty,  denounces 
as  "one  of  the  grossest  lies  ever  told  by  an  individual " 
an  alleged  statement  by  Dr.  Paden,  as  follows:  "Sena- 
tor Smoot  [has]  sworn  to  obey  and  execute  the  decrees 
of  the  [Mormon]  church  and  to  avenge  the  blood  of  the 
prophets  Joseph  and   Hyrum   Smith,  and  to  teach  his 


--9— 

children  and  their  children's  children  unto  the  third  and 
fourth  generation,  so  to  do,  [the  people  of  the  United 
States  being  all  included  among  ^  the  slayers  of  these 
people']  and  that  Senator  Smoot  is  an  enemy  to  the 
government." 

Scores  of  Mormon  apostates,  all  more  honest  than  Mr. 
Peet  has  shown  himself  to  be  and  all  having  means  of 
knowledge,  under  oath,  have  declared  that  in  the  En- 
dowment House  every  Mormon  takes  an  oath  substan- 
tially in  the  words  used  by  Dr.  Paden.  To  this.  Mor- 
mons only  enter  a  general  denial.  When  asked  what 
the  oath  is,  so  that  one  can  determine  whether  their 
general  denial  is  a  mere  quibble  about  the  words  used, 
they  decline  to  become  specific. 

But  this  statement  of  Dr.  Paden  does  not  rest  solely 
upon  the  testimony  of  apostates,  but  every  element  of  it 
can  be  corroborated  by  numerous  admissions  of  Mormon 
leaders,  as  published  in  official  Mormon  organs. 

It  is  not  possible  to  here  quote  all  the  admissions  of 
this  character,  but  a  sample  may  be  given  just  to  show 
whether  Dr.  Paden  or  Mr.  Peet  is  the  more  honest. 

In  two  church  publications  in  my  possession,  I  find  a 
sermon  of  an  Apostle  containing  the  following:  ''When 
we  entered  into  the  kingdom  of  God  [the  Mormon 
church]  we  covenanted  [swore]  to  obey  his  [God's] 
counsel  and  knew  we  should  have  to  receive  it  from  his 
servants  [the  Mormon  authorities].  *  *  *  What,  render 
obedience  to  that  which  I  know  to  be  wrong?  Yes,  or 
why  did  you  come  into  the  kingdom  of  God  [the  Mor- 


— lO — 

mon  church]  or  throw  yourself  voluntarily  under  the 
superintendence  of  its  head?'^  That  seems  to  clinch 
the  matter  of  a  covenant  to  do  wrong  by  divine  Mormon 
command. 

Upon  the  question  of  the  Endowment  oath  of  venge- 
ance, I  will  quote  Brigham  Young,  as  reported  in  a 
Mormon  publication.  He  said:  ^^We  shall  know  by  the 
[Mormon]  Battalion  gathering  all  together^  who  have 
got  the  spirit  of  vengeance  to  revenge  the  blood  of  Pro- 
phets^ shed  in  Carthage  jail ^  and  we  will  do  it  or  swear 
our  children  to  never  rest  nor  give  up  till  the  blood  of  the 
Prophets  is  avenged  upon  those  that  dwell  upon  the 
earth, ' ' 

This  looks  very  much  like  Brigham  Young's  admis- 
sion to  the  truth  of  what  scores  of  apostates  swear  is 
true.  Thus,  the  question  of  veracity  is  not  between  Dr. 
Paden  and  the  honest  Peet,  but  rather  one  as  to  whether 
the  latter,  a  Methodist,  or  Brigham  Young  is  best  in- 
formed upon  the  question  of  a  Mormon  oath  of  ven- 
geance. 

Upon  the  treasonable  character  of  the  Mormon  church 
and  its  ambition  to  establish  a  theocracy,  *^the  temporal 
Kingdom  of  God,''  an  abundance  has  been  written  and 
few  except  men  whose  salary  or  station  in  the  church 
requires  that  they  remain  ignorant  of  the  facts,  would 
now  deny  the  apparent  fact.  Only  to  the  extent  that  a 
Mormon  is  weak  in  his  faith  can  he  be  exempt  from  the 
charge  that  he  owes  an  allegiance  in  matters  of  state 
higher  than  any  which  he  yields  to  the  state,  and  that 
those  to  whom  these  allegiance  is  given  have  an  often 


-II- 


expressed  ambition  to  construct  a  theocracy  upon  the 
ruins  of  the  United  States^  in  which  ^  ^  Theo-Democracy^ ' 
Mormon  leaders  will  rule  by  divine  right.  (For  a  few 
of  these  authoritative  declarations  see  ^'The  Gospel  Con- 
cerning Church  and  State.)''  Whether  such  an 
allegiance  is  worse  than  polygamy  I  do  not  care  to 
discuss. 

This  immaculate  Methodist  promotor,  Peet  of  Utah, 
seems  never  to  have  heard  of  the  Blood  Atonement  of 
apostates,  but  with  a  characteristic  mind  of  the  mali- 
ciously ignorant  he  denounces  as  liars  those  who  assert 
that  blood  atonement  of  apostates  is  a  doctrine  of  Mor- 
monism  often  practiced  in  the  past. 

If  Mr.  Peet,  the  right  honorable  and  the  very  honest 
Mr.  Peet,  cares  to  know  a  few  things  about  blood 
atonement,  I  ask  him  to  read  in  The  Truth  Seeker  of 
April  15,  1905,  where  a  score  of  sermons  upon  the  sub- 
ject are  quoted  from  authorized  Mormon  publications. 
After  that  he  may  read  the  confessions  of  Danite  Bill 
Hickman,  and  Cradlebough's  speech  in  Congress,  John 
D.  Lee's  confession  as  to  the  mountain  meadow  mas- 
sacre, and  a  half  dozen  equally  authentic  narratives  of 
what  was  done  by  the  *^ saints"  pursuant  to  this  infam- 
ous doctrine. 

If  Mr.  Smoot  has  any  sense,  he  will  dispatch  his  fool- 
killer  after  such  men  as  this  Methodist  Peet.  At  pres- 
ent, owing  to  the  incompetence  of  those  who  furnished 
Judge  Tayler  the  facts  against  Smoot,  the  Senator  may 
possibly  keep  his  seat.     However,  it  would  be  just  as 


— 12 — 

well   not   to  send   out   too   many  challenges   for   more 
evidence.     The  bluff  might  be  called. 

Permit   me  to  subscribe   myself  a  truth-seeker,  who 
believes  in  justice,  even  to  preachers. 

Theodore  Schroeder. 

6j  East  sgth  Street,  Neiu  York  City. 


P.  S. — Since  this  was  first  published  the  Mormon 
Apostles  have  dropped  two  of  their  number  who  had 
taken  polygamous  wives  since  the  manifesto,  and  had 
the  indiscretion  to  allow  it  to  be  discovered  by  the  gen- 
eral public.  Wonder  if  Mr.  Peet  and  his  guarantor  paid 
the  offered  reward  to  Jos.  F.  Smith  for  his  discovery  of  a 
polygamist?  No!  I  don't  wonder,  either.  Of  course  he 
didn't,  and  never  intended  to  pay  it  to  any  one,  under 
any  circumstances.  T.  S. 


•  ^'  htf 


''.^S(^' 


?  \ 


■j'rs 


>^'v'.'-,vv 


